Local missing persons sites

Archive

Archive

Categories

Categories

My blog has recently been added to Blog Nation, which is part of one of the largest networks of blog directories on the Web. Please visit my blog's personal page to vote for my blog and comment to other blog users.

WGN reports that the State wants to produce and present an animated video to show at trial. Peterson’s transportation to court and entry to courthouse has been changed so that the media will only see him once he is in the courtroom. Atty Brodsky says that potential jurors are being asked not only if they saw the Lifetime movie, “Drew Peterson: Untouchable” but whether their spouses have seen the film. There may be additions made to the jury pool since it is down about one third from when it was originally assembled about three years ago.

UPDATE 12:24 CST:

Court breaks for lunch. Media has yet to attend any of today’s proceedings.

UPDATE 12:33 CST:

According to Patch editor, Joe Hosey, defense attorney says a pending ruling may prompt the State to ask for trial delay.

It’s being reported that despite the appellate court’s ruling, Judge Burmila may bar some hearsay evidence before trial if he doesn’t deem it reliable enough. He also said that he may not rule until after the trial begins and each of the disputed statements are introduced.

UPDATE 05:52 CST:

Judge Burmilla barred testimony about Peterson wire-tapping Savio’s phone saying that wire-tapping a spouse doesn’t indicate an intention of murder. The judge still has to rule on a sealed motion involving a hearsay statement. He is giving both sides until Saturday to come up with some case law. Jury selection will still go forward on Monday.

*****************************************************
Drew Peterson will be in court this morning for the hearing of motions in advance of his trial, July 30th.

Six motions are before the court; two brought by the defense and four brought by the prosecution. In addition, attorneys are expected to discuss with Judge Burmila jury selection matters and trial details.

HLN is reporting that one of the motions is in regards to a “wound diagram”. A member of the defense team said that the problem is that they have not yet seen this diagram which they assume is a diagram of the wounds to Kathleen Savio’s body and head. They ceded that they may have no issue with the diagram once they see it.

Judge Burmila is also expected to rule on a motion regarding marital privilege. At previous hearings the courtroom has been cleared whenever it is discussed, but it could be related to comments Stacy Peterson made to her counselor, Neil Schori, about a conversation she had with her husband on the night that Kathleen Savio died, when she found him dressed in black, loading women’s clothing into a washing machine at their home.

Grandam, Judge White’s gag order mostly took into account pretrial matters. He meant for that to shut up Peterson and his goofy jailhouse interviews, as well as, I assume, keeping Brodsky’s mouth shut. I think we can agree that was a joke in and of itself. Peterson had numerous letters published by Sneed, and she even did a jailhouse interview. To me, the only thing I can see that was keep under wraps was most of the legal filings.

This new website appears to be the brainchild of Brodsky’s big head, and keeping himself front and center in the media. Since this is in anticipation of the trial itself, I doubt there’s anything more to gag. Besides, I don’t think this judge cares about any gag order. ;-)

I don’t really know what to make of that. Isn’t all of the evidence up for objection once it gets to court? AFAIK, there’s no way that every piece of hearsay evidence will be barred beforehand. The defense only has two motions to argue today and there are many hearsay statements still admissible per the appellate court.

Drew Peterson judge might ban some hearsay testimony against him after all
BY DAN ROZEK AND JON SEIDEL Staff Reporters
Updated: July 18, 2012 4:10PM

Some crucial hearsay statements still could be barred from Drew Peterson’s murder trial because of questions about their reliability, despite an earlier appellate court ruling they could be used against the former Bolingbrook cop.

The ruling Wednesday by Will County Judge Edward Burmila also raises the possibility that Peterson’s long-delayed Murder trial still won’t begin as scheduled on Monday.

The appellate court ruling earlier this year appeared to clear the way for prosecutors to use 14 secondhand statements that allegedly tie Peterson to the 2004 drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

But Burmila said a 2010 ruling by retired Judge Stephen White that some of the statements couldn’t be used at the trial because their reliability was uncertain still could prevent prosecutors from using those statements at Peterson’s trial.

Defense attorneys praised the ruling.

“The door is open to barring some of the hearsay,” defense attorney Steve Greenberg said.

Burmila could rule Monday on which statements may be withheld from jurors, who are scheduled to begin being selected that day. If Burmila bars as many as 9 statements, prosecutors could opt to immediately appeal his ruling, which could again delay Peterson’s trial.

Burmila, though, said he may not rule until after the trial begins and prosecutors attempt to introduce each of the disputed statements.

But Burmila said a 2010 ruling by retired Judge Stephen White that some of the statements couldn’t be used at the trial because their reliability was uncertain still could prevent prosecutors from using those statements at Peterson’s trial.

Am I off my nut here, or didn’t the appellate court reverse Judge White’s decisions on the hearsay evidence seeing as he had never considered the common law exceptions?

Isn’t that what delayed the trial for two years? Judge Burmila gets to just thumb his nose at the Illinois Supreme and Appellate courts and do it his way?

Let’s see if I have this right. The Appellate Court made a ruling that certain hearsay is admissible, but Judge Burmila is falling back on Judge White’s ruling to say he probably won’t let it in? In other words, he is saying he doesn’t care what the Appellate Court ruled–it’s his call and that’s it?

Wouldn’t the State then ask for a delay and for a clarification, or whatever you want to call it, from the Appellate Court? Yikes.

The judge is giving the attorneys until Saturday to provide case law in support of their motions, and it sounds as though the State might not be commiting to moving forward if his ruling denies prior admissible hearsay.

July 18, 2012 (JOLIET, Ill.) (WLS) — Drew Peterson was in court Wednesday for what could be his final hearing before jury selection begins in his murder trial next week.

A judge must still decide on whether some key evidence will be allowed once testimony begins.

It is coming down to the wire. The judge still has to rule on a sealed motion involving a hearsay statement. He is giving both sides until Saturday to come up with some case law.

Either way, jury selection is still scheduled to begin on Monday. It is a day that Kathleen Savio’s family is very much looking forward to.

Sue Savio rarely misses a court hearing. The sister of Kathleen feels as though she is the voice for Drew Peterson’s third wife, who was found dead in a bathtub in 2004.

The Savio family never believed Kathleen’s death was an accident as it was originally ruled. They are relieved the day is almost here where Peterson will be on trial for Savio’s murder.

“There will never be closure. My sister is gone,” said Sue Savio. “She’s always in my heart, so I believe that justice will give me some peace.”

The Savio case was reopened in 2007 after Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy went missing.

The former Bolingbrook police sergeant was arrested two years later for Savio’s murder. Ever since, Peterson’s attorneys and the Will County state’s attorney have been battling it out in court. Much of the arguments deal with motions over whether certain hearsay statements will be allowed during the trial. Despite different legal rulings on the issue, it is still unknown how many of those statements the judge will allow.

“He’s gonna listen to the case. He’s gonna listen to the facts,” said defense attorney Steve Greenberg. “He’s gonna rule. He’s gonna allow in what’s relevant and material. He’s gonna keep out what’s prejudicial and unreliable, which is exactly what he should be doing. It’s gonna make sure that Drew gets a fair trial.”

“We’re looking forward on Monday to picking a jury,” said Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

Despite jury selection starting Monday, the judge still has to rule on certain hearings. He is giving both sides time to come up with more case law.

Despite the publicity surrounding this case, Peterson’s attorneys are confident their client will get a fair jury.

“We’re gonna be able to get a pool of jurors,” said defense attorney Joe Lopez. “I don’t think it’s gonna be a problem at all. I think we’re gonna get 12 fair jurors.”

Before jury selection begins on Monday morning, the judge is expected to rule on that sealed motion.

Opening statements are scheduled for the Tuesday, July 31.

Depending on the judge’s Monday ruling, there may be a possibility there could be a delay in the trial.

Hey those that read here — Joel Brodsky put Joe Hosey on the defense witness list as a “rebuttal witness.” The end result of this? Keep Joe Hosey from covering the trial.

Joel Brodsky you are a piece of garbage that doesn’t have a brain in which to think yourself out of a closet. Talk about a low-ball tactic. That’s about as moronic as chaining yourself to a table during a court proceeding. And having a lapse in judgment by signing a dead person’s name to a check and getting suspended from practicing law for it.

I hope the news outlets that read here see what a complete idiot and moron you are. Looks like the AOL lawyers will have to get involved, and outsmart you. Why don’t you pretend to act like a lawyer, instead of a wanna-be bully no one pays attention to anyway. This whole case, and the years of you and your murder defendant of a client, make me sick.;-)

All the hearsay evidence prosecutors managed to get in through the appellate court might be back out.

By Joseph Hosey

The hearsay evidence the appellate court allowed against accused wife-killer Drew Peterson may not make it into his murder trial after all.

Will County Judge Edward Burmila balked at crossing retired Judge Stephen White, who presided over the Peterson case before hanging up his robe and gavel in 2010.

While he was on in the Peterson case, White decided eight of 14 hearsay statements prosecutors want to use against Peterson lacked reliability.

Prosecutors appealed White’s ruling and won. The appeal was based on judging the hearsay statements under law that does not take reliability into consideration. White had retired in the meantime and Burmila inherited the case, and he did not seem eager to let in what White wanted kept out.

“There’s no way I can simply ignore findings made by Judge White,” Burmila said Wednesday following hours of secret, closed door hearings.

But while Burmia said he can’t ignore White, he didn’t say he’s necessarily abiding by his predecessor’s ruling either. Burmila invited prosecutors and defense attorneys to send him case law supporting their claims by Saturday.

Assistant State’s Attorney Colleen Griffin pushed for Burmila to make a decision before jury selection starts Monday morning, presumably so prosecutors can file an appeal if the judge doesn’t go their way. But Burmila snapped back at Griffin that she wasn’t about to tell him what to do.

“You’re not going to tell me now that I have to rule at your pace,” he said.

Prosecutors added two more hearsay statements they want to use against Peterson after their triumph in the appellate court in April. Of these 16, Burmila has given the green light to seven.

He may rule—when he feels like ruling—that the other nine are allowed in as well. He can also decide to keep them out. And Burmila also has the option to rule on each as they are testified to at trial.

Defense attorney Steve Greenberg said that third scenario would be “like every other criminal case,” where after witnesses testify they “get the crap cross-examined out of them and the jury’s going to decide if they’re telling the truth.”

Peterson has been jailed since May 2009 on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004. The state police insisted Savio died accidentally, but abruptly decided she was the victim of a homicide when Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007.

Stacy Peterson remains missing. The state police believe Peterson may have had a hand in her disappearance but have yet to charge him with harming her.

The 16 hearsay statements were supposedly spoken by either Stacy or Savio and will be relayed through witnesses claiming to have heard them. Judge White already ruled that it was more likely than not that Drew Peterson killed both women to keep them from testifying against him.

Following Wednesday’s day-long court session, State’s Attorney James Glasgow was asked repeatedly if he would attempt to appeal if Burmila happens to exlude nine of the 16 hearsay statements.

“I’m not going to try to guess what the judge is going to do or not going to do,” Glasgow said, although he conceded that he expects Burmila to make a decision before the start of jury selection. So did Peterson’s lawyers.

To me the Peterson wire-tapping goes to show that he was still trying to be in control of Kathleen’s life and wanted to know what she was doing and who she was talking to…Absolutely a control freak, jealous and conniving….

In a hearing days before jury selection begins, Will County Judge Edward Burmila Wednesday ruled prosecutors could display a three-dimensional model of the alleged murder victim, Kathleen Savio.

But he denied a prosecutors’ motion to enter evidence Peterson wiretapped Savio’s house. A prosecutor had described the planting of a recording device as proof of Peterson’s plan to eventually kill his third wife.

Control freak oh yes but, If you did the dirty deeds that Drew did, he was always looking over his shoulder, imagine that type of life, no thankyou…And Rescue, what you said about the AOL lawyers out smarting Brodsky, my dog could out smart him…

It’s sounding to me that Judge Burmila wants to try this case himself-and decide what he’ll hear, when he wants to hear it, and devil take the hindmost on a jury. I predicted problems with this judge a long time ago…I swear it sounds as iif he’s already made up his mind and doesn’t want anything (or anybody) confusing him with the facts.
This is NOT the attitude a judge should have, nor is it the oath that he swore to uphold. Has he forgotten that Lady Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason?

Mark Jensen was found quilty of murdering his wife in wisconsin.
Julie Jensen, the victim, had given a neighbor a letter pointing an accusing finger at her husband should anything happen to her.
She also made foreboding comments to police and to her son’s teacher, saying she suspected that her husband was trying to kill her.
After the verdict, jurors told reporters that the letter gave them “a clear road map” to conviction, as one female juror phrased it.

Hmmm, Judge Burmilla was saying yesterday that he might bar some of it before it ever gets to trial, or that he might allow it to be presented and give the defense a chance to challenge it and then he’ll shoot it down if he agrees.

He also yelled at prosecutors for urging him to decide which way he’ll go by Monday, saying that he’ll rule when he sees fit and not to suit them.

He’s giving both sides until Saturday to show him some case law supporting their arguments and then he’ll decide…whenever he wants, which doesn’t seem very fair to the prosecution.

I understand that some of the hearsay could get shot down in the courtroom, that was mentioned in the appellate court’s decision–they deemed it admissible but couldn’t guarantee that it would make it to trial. But I think it’s kind of an eff-you to the higher courts if Burmila shoots it down before the prosecution even gets a chance to attempt to present it.

This is the footnote from the Appellate Court’s most recent ruling that the hearsay was admissible:

We do not mean to suggest, however, that the circuit court is required to admit those eight statements during the trial. Rather, we merely hold that the statements are admissible under Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) and should be admitted under that rule unless the circuit court finds they are otherwise inadmissible.

So, if Judge Burmila bars the statements is he required to explain how he deems them “otherwise inadmissible” or can he just wave his hand and dismiss them on a whim?

“…the common law doctrine is “coextensive with” Federal Rule 804(b)(6), which is a hearsay exception that does not require a showing of reliability as a condition of admissibility);…”

and yet the media is reporting

Burmila said a 2010 ruling by retired Judge Stephen White that some of the statements couldn’t be used at the trial because their reliability was uncertain still could prevent prosecutors from using those statements at Peterson’s trial.

So, how could the judge decide that they are unreliable when the appellate decision was made pursuant to common law and Federal Rule 804(b) which does not require proof of reliability?

Judge White did NOT make his decision based on Rule 804(b). He expressly said that he ruled solely pursuant to the new hearsay statute which required a high degree of reliability.

“I didn’t even get to that…I ruled strictly pursuant – there was a hearing pursuant to the statute.”

So how can Judge Burmila now say he might stick with Judge White’s rulings after White’s (reversed) ruling was based on the new hearsay statute and the appellate court’s decision was based on common law and Rule 804(b)?

Steve Schmedeke’s case background story at the trib yesterday contained some details that I hadn’t seen before (or don’t remember). [SNIPPETS]

…On Friday, Feb. 27, 2004, Maniaci picked up Savio and took her out to dinner with another couple at the Samba Room in Naperville, according to court testimony. They went to a bar and returned to Savio’s home and had sex. Maniaci testified that he saw none of the injuries later found on Savio’s arm, elbow and finger.

On Saturday they ate breakfast at Steak ‘n Shake. Maniaci dropped Savio off at her home about 11 a.m.

A few hours later, her next-door neighbors saw her come home from a grocery shopping trip. Pontarelli helped her bring in the groceries and then the two ate lunch together.

The last time anyone heard from Savio, according to court testimony, was around midnight on Sunday, Feb. 29, when Maniaci was awakened by a phone call. The couple had talked earlier of meeting Saturday night but hadn’t….

…On that Tuesday, while Savio’s sisters were at her house, Peterson began pounding on the door, ran upstairs with a clothes basket and stuffed clothing and papers inside it, according to one sister’s testimony. Susan Doman testified that she heard Peterson on the phone saying, “Morelli, I got it.”

Phone records show Peterson spoke with his former Bolingbrook police partner Alex Morelli at about that time. Prosecutors have speculated that Peterson took Savio’s will or some incriminating evidence….

Interesting information about Morelli, which I never heard before. What I have heard is that Morelli made a statement after Stacy’s disappearance:

CRAIG WALL, FOX NEWS, JANUARY 15, 2008: “… Alex Morelli, Drew’s former partner says he wants nothing more to do with Drew and has nothing positive to say about him. He said Drew has turned his world upside down…”

…The 12 people who could decide whether Peterson murdered third wife Kathleen Savio will soon be chosen. And for more than 200 Will County residents it’s been a long time coming.

They’ve lived under a judge’s order since August 2009 not to follow news of what could be the most high-profile case in Will County’s history. Defense lawyers tried to convince the judge to pick from a new group, arguing no Illinois jury pool has ever been on hold for as long as Peterson’s.

Andrea Lyon, a DePaul University law professor and former attorney for accused Florida daughter killer Casey Anthony, said the use of such an old jury pool invites a reversal in the case by an appellate court. But Neil Adams, a criminal defense attorney who spent 10 years as a Will County prosecutor, sums up the old pool as just another quirk in Peterson’s already bizarre five-year legal saga.

“It’s odd,” Adams said. “But this is an odd case.”…

…Will County Court Administrator Kurt Sangmeister said Peterson’s former judge set aside a pool of about 235 potential jurors in 2009. Some of its members have moved away during the lengthy appeal process that put Peterson’s trial on hold. Others have died or have medical problems, but he said the pool still includes more than 200 people — though their identities haven’t been released….

Weirdly, not at all. Chris Vaughn was arrested and charged in June 2007 for the murder of his family and he has still not gone to trial. Detained all this time as well in Will County. He’s got two years on Drew!

Police were called to the couple’s Bolingbrook home eighteen times in two years. One of Peterson’s former colleagues, Lt. James Coughlin, testified about responding to a disturbance at the home during which Savio declined to press charges because she thought Peterson might lose his job and pension.

Coughlin also recalled seeing Peterson at the Will County Courthouse during his divorce from Savio and Peterson commenting that his “life would be a lot easier if she was dead or dying.” Coughlin didn’t take it seriously enough to report at the time, which was the month before Savio died. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/witness-former-ill-cop-277886.html)

This judge is making some attention-grabbing rulings. However, what is his point of being out-of-control with his yelling and screaming at the prosecutor, telling her to sit down and not tell him when he should make a ruling? He ranted and raved at her at a previous hearing. Maybe he should get a massage or do some meditation before he blows a gasket, for all the anger that seems to well up in him when it comes to the prosecution. I don’t understand a judge screaming at either side, as angry outbursts should be avoided. Guess this guy doesn’t know how to control that. He sure doesn’t sound like the one with the voice of reason in that courtroom. He sounds like the one that would send everyone running for the hills. I used to work for a lawyer like that. The veins in her neck would pop out, and her face would get red with anger for all the spitting and spewing she did. Wonder if that’s how Judge Burmila looks when he’s having one of his tantrums? He’s the one with the biggest head, who happens to be the one on the bench. What a shame.

Now this jury issue. At first, the defense was against using the same jury pool, but it seems they have thought better of it. From what I read in the article, maybe the defense is thinking the same thing Andrea Lyon pointed out — it invites a reversal if there’s a conviction.

Sneed has learned the name of Stacy Peterson, the missing fourth wife of accused wife murderer Drew Peterson, is on a witness list to potentially appear in the murder trial this month of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Stacy Peterson was married to Drew Peterson in 2004, when Savio’s body was found in a bathtub in the second floor master bedroom of her Bolingbrook home.

The defense claims Savio slipped and fell, which is what a coroner’s jury ruled years ago; and that there is no physical evidence tying Drew Peterson to her death.

The prosecution claims Drew Peterson drowned her.

Hearsay evidence involving statements made by Savio and Stacy Peterson to witnesses has been the subject of a two-year legal battle.

Although jurors will not hear directly about Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, her shadow looms over the trial like an 800-pound gorilla.

By filing such a witness list, the defense is showing it believes Stacy Peterson is still alive and a potential witness for the defense — even though no one knows where she is.

Despite an exhaustive search by state police, Stacy Peterson’s body has never been found and there has been no correspondence with her family.

Drew Peterson once suggested Stacy Peterson “ran off with another guy and could be dancing somewhere.”

In an exclusive interview with Sneed this summer, Drew Peterson claimed the first thing he’d ask Stacy Peterson if she shows upis “for a divorce,”

Well, I doubt that the jurors will be told that she can’t be located to testify. It seems like her name is on the list only to make some kind of point to the prosecution (who I don’t doubt already understand that Drew is claiming Stacy ran away.) It’s also another slap at the hearsay testimony because if Stacy were available to testify the prosecutors wouldn’t be in the position of trying to get her statements into trial under a Forfeiture by Wrongdoing hearsay exception.

She may be on the list but obviously was never served with a subpoena, so it’s not like there’s going to be any big dramatic moment when they call her to the stand and then she doesn’t show. To me, having her name on the list is just more defense team BS, especially since they felt the need to leak it to Sneed.

Now that the trial is looming, HLN has graciously extended an invitation to us, as administrators of this board, to do interview time with them, based on the extensive information that has appeared on this blog over the years.

Over those years, much of the information posted here dealt with Brodsky’s bizarre and unconventional relationship with Drew Peterson. Obviously, we have not endeared ourselves to Brodsky, nor is this blog something he finds to his liking.

I might enjoy being on HLN and pointing out, first of all, that falsely targeting Joe Hosey as the administrator of this board is just another obsession Brodsky has with an adversary, to the point that he can’t see straight and has even convinced some of his co-counsel that we are, in fact, Joe Hosey. Pfft. Anyone who would listen to and believe what Brodsky thinks he knows about this board is as pea-brained as he is. Apparently, from my understanding, even Attorney Greenberg has been convinced by Brodsky (oh heavens) that Joe Hosey is behind this board. Glad Greenberg has that all figured out. Seems to me, what a waste of time it is to concentrate on who runs this board (got that HLN, Fox News, CBS, Chicago Tribune, Sun Times, et al)?

So, is THAT the reason local reporter, Joe Hosey, has wound up on the defense witness list? Oh my. Are we talking about high-profile, intelligent, professional lawyers here, listening to a so-called authority tell them who runs this place?

HLN thinks it would be interesting for viewers to hear about the beginnings of this board, and about us. Well, read it here folks — the defense dream team has one-upped you, so they think. Yep, I’d enjoy yet again pointing out a few things about Attorney Brodsky for the viewers.

I’d enjoy nothing more than reminding the viewers that Joel Brodsky schlepped around his client to radio stations to help him promote his personal liquor/food establishment. It’s all here, including the interviews, on JC. ;-)

I’d enjoy getting a chuckle reading his threatening Blackberry message directed at me, when he had a lapse of memory and I wasn’t Joe Hosey afterall. He was going to sue me for something or other, and I was going to “loose” my house and my business. (What business that is, I’ve yet to learn.) His goon, Kris McPherson, was happy enough to post his text message to her on another board. She’s the groupie that latched onto Peterson and started showing up at hearings to support him, after he became a famous creep. You see, she’s obsessed with cops, and maybe thinks she may have been one in a prior life. Short of that, she’ll take what she can get.

Rescue will soon be hearing a knock knock on her door. Guess who? Its the process server with a summons. Better get a good lawyer. Wow are they expensive. Soon she will be consulting a bankruptcy lawyer. Too bad libel judgments aren’t discharable. Loosing her home and business. Awh that’s too bad.

Joel A. BrodskySent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

I’d be happy to chat over the airwaves about the monster that rears his ugly head.

Anway, getting back to what this board is really about, sharing comments and information, isn’t putting Stacy Peterson on the witness list a two-edged sword? It brings attention to her not being in the courtroom, which is what the defense wanted to avoid. What’s the purpose of this? The jury is to assume the defense expects her to show up? Okay….

Interesting story from an HLN producer about being left alone in a room with Drew Peterson last May and a short conversation he had with him:

he asked me, “And where do I recognize you from?” After getting no indication from either deputy that I shouldn’t speak to the defendant, I told him my name, that I was with In Session, and that possibly he remembered seeing me from two years ago, when his trial was originally supposed to begin.

As soon as he heard that I was with In Session, Peterson immediately asked me if I thought we were going to be able to televise his trial, saying how much he hoped people could see for themselves what a “joke” the case against him was going to be. And then, for the next several minutes, he and I chatted like old friends (sometimes the deputies joined the conversation, and sometimes they just sat back and listened).

Peterson complained how local television reports about the case always air the worst possible shots of him in an effort to make him look foolish. He also said that one radio station had played clips of people speaking ill of him with added Disneyesque music or sound effects in the background, such as birds chirping; in contrast, according to Peterson, any of his own audio was underscored with the shark theme music from the movie “JAWS.”

I can honestly say, I don’t remember anything about chirping birds or jaws music. I can only pick out the lack of judgment he used in going on all of these media appearances and saying stupid things. The music in the background has nothing ot do with it. What an odd observation, one that he never leveled before. Hmmm.

As for the radio stations and the sound effects, I never heard anything like that. If true, it obviously wasn’t a news station–probably some “Morning Madhouse” thing which, by the way, Peterson and his lawyer were happy to appear on while joking about his dead and missing wives so…

Hey Rescue and Facs, you 2 are amazing. You have been through hell with these idiots….But the best is THEy think Joe runs this…..LOL LMAO Now thats someone I would want to defend me in a murder trial….Yeh right Loosers is all I can say..In the end, they will look like idiots. Keep up the great job you do.

Amazing! Do the interview, and get as much out as you can! I can’t believe they still think that, especially after what Mcpherson, and her blog buddies did to Rescue. You know, the truth about her ROFL. How they think they sue anybody, after all the stuff they have said, and done to all of us! I’m just glad I don’t live in Bolingbrook anymore so I can’t be stalked, or followed around town anymore! I would definitely do the interview and show what kind of Attorney antics he pulls all the time! He shouldn’t even be allowed to practice law, after what I heard is on those hearsay tapes :)

You know, I wonder if those tapes are going to be used in the trial? There sure hasn’t been any discussion about what’s on them, or if they’re even in the running for use at his trial. However, their contents may have more to do with Stacy’s disappearance than Kathleen’s death.

Yes, the Sun-Times gossip column bringing you all the news no one cares about. Drew Peterson is getting a hair cut.

Don’t be surprised if Drew Peterson, who’s charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, shows up in court Monday with a clean shave.

◆ Translation: Sneed is told a court order had to be obtained to get a barber to cut Peterson’s shaggy locks and shave off his mustache and goatee.

◆ Tress stress: “Because Drew is basically in isolation near the Will County jail’s medical unit, he did not have access to . . . barbers,” said a Peterson source. “So his hair was getting chopped off pretty badly.”

By By DON BABWIN – CHICAGO (AP) — For a man whose fourth wife had just disappeared, Drew Peterson didn’t sound the least bit worried. He seemed almost gleeful, suggesting that she had run off with another man and that all her threats of divorce coincided with her menstrual cycle.

Authorities investigating that disappearance back in 2007 soon started wondering if Peterson might have been involved with the earlier drowning death of his third wife. But that didn’t faze him. He joked about a “Win a Date With Drew” contest and discussed appearing on a reality TV show about a Nevada brothel.

The crass swagger continued even after the former suburban Chicago police officer was arrested in the drowning, which had originally been ruled an accident. Peterson called a radio show — collect, from jail — to joke about a “Win a Conjugal Visit With Drew” game.

Five years after he became an object of national scorn, Peterson is about to go on trial on charges that he murdered Kathleen Savio in 2004. His fourth wife, Stacy, has never been found.

Observers say Peterson may benefit from the three years he’s been behind bars and out of the public eye.

“He really was becoming one of the more hated individuals in America,” said Joe Tacopina, a prominent defense attorney in New York. “Because he was in jail, he took himself off the front page, and that can only help him with a jury pool.”

Peterson’s attorney agreed.

“Nobody’s going to deny that Drew’s relatively goofy behavior rubbed people the wrong way,” said Joel Brodsky, who explained Peterson’s actions as both the byproduct of a sometimes grim job and his way of moving on after his wife left him.

“The fact that he hasn’t been at that for a period of years certainly helps some of his past antics fade from memory.”

The case, which begins Monday with jury selection, is sure to rekindle memories of the media frenzy that engulfed Peterson before his arrest, when he often joked with an army of news crews camped outside his house and even invited Geraldo Rivera into his kitchen.

Reporters from around the country and maybe from as far away as Japan will descend on a courthouse in Joliet to watch the latest chapter of a story that has already spawned a couple of books and a cable TV movie starring Rob Lowe as Peterson.

The frenetic coverage “absolutely has the possibility of reigniting,” said Mark Geragos, a prominent California defense attorney who has been at the center of comparable firestorms, including when he represented Scott Peterson (no relation), a California man convicted of murdering his young wife and unborn child.

Prosecutors expect to tell a relatively simple story: Drew Peterson killed his ex-wife to keep her from making off with much of his money in a contentious divorce. Sometime around Feb. 29, 2004, according to the indictment, Peterson went to Savio’s house and in the bathroom caused her “to inhale fluid,” killing her.

But that simple story is complicated by what happened after Savio’s body was discovered by a friend of Peterson’s. Peterson had called the friend to the house to look for Savio, saying he was worried.

The investigation unfolded nothing like the ones jurors may have seen on television programs such as “CSI” and “Law & Order.”

Detectives are expected to testify, as they did at a hearing in 2010, that nobody collected a single fingerprint or hair fiber at the house. They will likely acknowledge that Savio’s relatives, who could have told investigators about the couple’s ongoing battles, were never interviewed.

Jurors may also hear, as a judge did at the 2010 hearing, that Peterson was allowed to sit in on a police interview with Stacy Peterson as a “professional courtesy.” This happened while officers were trying to confirm Peterson’s whereabouts the weekend Savio died.

They may hear from another detective who has already testified that he was “disgusted” by the investigation, that he thought Stacy Peterson was “hiding something” and that he strongly suspected Savio’s death was not an accident.

When it does come up, it will be prosecutors who ask about it.

“You have to bring out all your failures, all the flaws of the case, yourself,” said Marcia Clark, the former Los Angeles deputy district attorney who led the unsuccessful prosecution of O.J. Simpson.

The two sides will also argue over something that is rarely an issue in a murder trial: Whether a murder was actually committed.

Because Savio’s death was originally ruled an accidental drowning, prosecutors will present pathologists to explain that an examination of Savio’s body after it was exhumed revealed she had been killed.

Brodsky said he has three pathologists ready to testify that Savio’s death was, as originally determined, an accident.

The defense is bound to use the disputed findings to put forth its own theory about why Peterson was charged — “because of heat from law enforcement,” Geragos said.

If there is any physical evidence linking Peterson to the crime, prosecutors have not said what it is. Instead, the case they present to the jury is expected to be largely, if not totally, circumstantial.

Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, who famously said after Peterson’s arrest in 2009 that Savio would speak “from the grave,” is expected to call witnesses to testify about what Savio and Stacy Peterson told them.

Already, people have testified at a previous hearing that Savio described episodes in which Peterson held a knife to her throat and told her there was nothing she could do to protect herself from him.

Even without physical evidence, jurors can convict suspects on circumstantial cases. And they do so often.

“The jury is going to look at this like a web, and good circumstantial cases put the defendant in the middle of that web,” said David Erickson, a former state appellate judge who teaches law at Chicago Kent College of Law.

The biggest question is whether Peterson will take the stand. Brodsky will not say. In many cases, attorneys reserve that decision until after prosecutors complete their evidence.

But Erickson suggested that Peterson might have to testify.

Good circumstantial cases “force defendants to take the stand,” he said. “You are in the middle of that web, and you’ve got to come up with an alternate explanation of how you got there.”

What???? Are my eyes deceiving me? Is he kidding? Brodsky sounds like he’s putting the blame squarely on Peterson for the negative view people have of him. Unbelievable.

…“He really was becoming one of the more hated individuals in America,” said Joe Tacopina, a prominent defense attorney in New York. “Because he was in jail, he took himself off the front page, and that can only help him with a jury pool.”

Peterson’s attorney agreed.

“Nobody’s going to deny that Drew’s relatively goofy behavior rubbed people the wrong way,” said Joel Brodsky, who explained Peterson’s actions as both the byproduct of a sometimes grim job and his way of moving on after his wife left him.

“The fact that he hasn’t been at that for a period of years certainly helps some of his past antics fade from memory.”

As I think I understand it, the defense will argue that the first conclusion regarding Kathleen’s death is the correct one–accidental. Dr. Mitchell did not determine the manner of death, that was left up to an inquest panel of laypeople. Dr. Mitchell’s findings were that Kathleen Savio drowned. That is undisputed.

What is disputed is the manner of her death. As a recap, I find this a contradiction that needs to be overcome. There was testimony at the hearsay hearing by the lead officer at the Kathleen Savio death scene that he did not do a complete and thorough job investigating her death. He deferred to the crime scene investigator at the time, who quickly determined her death was an accident, and has acknowledged he didn’t see those bruises. He is no longer able to process crime scenes in Will County.

We were given evidence and photographs by the coroner at the time, and we were asked to review them and come to a conclusion as to the cause of death.” – “We heard from a couple of the relatives. They came in prior to our reviewing the evidence. But they left the room, and then we were left to review the evidence at hand.” – “we were only told to review the evidence at hand, and when we were through reviewing the evidence, come to a conclusion and then call the coroner in and tell him that we reached a conclusion.” – “in reviewing the evidence at hand, we did decide that it was an accident due to the fact that we were laypeople and were not medical examiners or anything like that. So with the evidence that we had, we determined it wasn’t natural, of course, and we — also being laypeople, we could not decide whether it was a homicide.“

(WALTER LEE) JAMES: He — there was a police officer on the panel, and he indicated at the time he knew or knew of Peterson. And he indicated to the panel that he thought that Peterson was a good policeman. He was charitable and helped his neighbors, and so on and so forth. So I think that — I think that might have influenced some of the panel members, but I don’t know that for sure.

Jim Pretto told ABC News back in February of 2008 that if they had known all the facts about the case in 2004, he would have called Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide.

“There was no evidence at all to point toward it being a murder,” Pretto said. “There was nothing presented at all.” Pretto said that though the jurors on the coroner’s inquest were suspicious, they did not have enough evidence to call Savio’s death anything but an accident.

“We had no other alternative,” he said. “I think more evidence should have been presented, more investigation should have been done at the time.”

We’ve all seen the complete inquest transcript now. Yes, there was no testimony or evidence presented to the jurors to indicate that foul play might be suspected. In fact, ISP Officer Herbert Hardy said otherwise. One panel member (Dennis Pratl) made it personal, and said Drew Peterson was a good guy. Yet, Jim Pretto wishes they had listened more to Kathleen’s family. The jurors did not hear about Savio asking for a restraining order against Peterson, and they were told by the ISP officer that there were no insurance policies involved. They did not hear about the police being called eighteen times to intervene in their disputes.

EIGHTEEN TIMES the cops were called to intervene in disputes between Kathleen and Peterson. The day she was not answering her phone or the door and needed to be checked on, Peterson calls a locksmith and the neighbors. Either he lost the “911” phone number, his radio wasn’t working, or the BBPD told him they were too busy this one time and handle it himself. Right?

There is so much messed up about that investigation. The coroner’s inquest was ridiculous. Look at this exchange between Coroner O’Neil and ISP Special Agent Herbert Hardy, who had never stepped foot on the scene of Kathleen’s death. His only knowledge of the scene was from a photocopy of the report:

Q: I know she had this laceration on the back of her head. Does it appear as though her death occurred right in the tub?

A (HARDY): Yes, it did.

I guess that was the conclusion drawn by investigators because they didn’t see blood anywhere but the small amount in the bathtub. Still, quite the jump considering the little attention paid to the scene. But then a few minutes later is this exchange…

JURY MEMBER: Regarding the laceration to the back of her head, you indicated it happened in the tub, where on the tub did she hit? Did she hit the faucet? Was there any hair left?

THE WITNESS (HARDY): No, it’s on the far side of the tub away from the faucet, you know. where normally you would set and rest your head when you take a bath.

Suddenly Herbert Hardy is able to inform a jury member of exactly where Kathleen Savio struck her head on the bathtub, even though the ISP never saw, much less collected any blood or hair evidence from the edge of the tub. Did he just make this up on the spot?

The Chicago Tribune has a story about the “daunting task of seating a Peterson jury.” In that story, sources are used (experts) to add their opinion related to the story. Jeff Tomczak, “former Will County State’s Attorney…” is one of the sources quoted in the story. I find it troublesome, after reading the story, that Mr. Tomczak’s expertise is being used here, but no where in the article does it mention HE WAS THE STATE’S ATTORNEY in office at the time of Kathleen Savio’s death. I was flabbergasted to see that he was used as a source for the story. Absolutely amazed! I looked through the story to see if he was questioned about his role in the 2004 death investigation of Kathleen Savio, but he wasn’t. He gave his thoughtful insight as to how “mentally” tough it’s going to be to pick a jury. How it’s going to be a “crapshoot.” He said “one of the keys to jury selection here is understanding the unique nature of the communities where the jurors come from…”

I don’t care what Mr. Tomczak thinks about selecting the Peterson jury. I care about why he ignored numerous, huge reasons why he should have conducted a full and meaningful investigation into Kathleen Savio’s death, and why she was ignored and her death ruled an accident.

Peterson and Savio had a contentious relationship, and Kathleen wrote to his office begging for help. One letter was sent to Elizabeth Fragale. The couple were in the midst of a heated divorce and settlement. The victim was arrested during an explosive encounter between them and his then-girlfriend. Yet, after Kathleen’s sudden death, no red-flags were raised, no meaningful investigation was launched, no Grand Jury investigation was opened, no explanation was given for ignoring Kathleen’s cries for help. No one seemed to be concerned that Peterson gained substantial sums of money by Kathleen’s death, he managed to hold onto his full pension because of her death, he inherited her house, he was the benefactor of her Will, even though she hated the sight of the man, her family’s pleas for justice were ignored, an incomplete and useless coroner’s inquest was held, where her family tried to intervene with information. Yet, no evidence of “foul play” was seen. Mr. State’s Attorney Tomczak did not feel that Drew Peterson was anything more than the ex-husband of a woman who slipped and fell in her bathtub.

But, this man’s opinion about picking a jury is useful? Pfft. Garbage in, garbage out! I’d rather hear how he sleeps at night after the way he ran his investigation of the Peterson/Savio matter!!!!!

…She was Drew Peterson’s third wife. With Kathleen’s death, Drew Peterson got control of a million-dollar life insurance benefit for the couple’s two sons, and he inherited all of his ex-wife’s money and property, including her suburban Chicago home and her half of their joint business investments.

Kathleen’s dire prediction to her sister was not the first time she foretold her own murder. In November 2002, two years before her death when her divorce from Peterson was at its nastiest, Kathleen wrote to the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office, begging the prosecutor to charge Peterson with breaking into her home and holding a knife to her throat.

Kathleen wrote that her police sergeant ex-husband was furious over having to pay her child support. “He knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away,” Kathleen wrote. “Or kill me instead.”…

…On November 14, 2002, Kathleen wrote her letter to Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale, begging the prosecutor to help protect her from Drew, who she said was likely to kill her.

But Kathleen Savio’s pleas went unanswered.

…Drew Peterson stood to lose upwards of $300,000 in cash and assets, plus half of his $72,000 a year police pension when he retired…

…When Glasgow, who was not State’s Attorney at the time of Kathleen’s death, reviewed the case after the 2007 disappearance of Stacy Peterson, he said the death scene in Kathleen’s bathroom appeared to have been staged to look like an accident.

But in 2004, then-State’s Attorney Jeff Tomczak** didn’t see it that way. In May 2004, a six-member coroner’s jury listened to a couple hours of testimony and ruled Kathleen Savio’s death an accidental drowning. One of the witnesses who testified was a state police investigator who told the jury there was no evidence of foul play, and that the laceration on the back of Kathleen’s head had been the result of a fall. The conclusion was that the fall had knocked her out and she had drowned in the tub.

The trooper on whose testimony the jury leaned so heavily had not been present at either the death scene or at the autopsy, nor had he interviewed Drew Peterson, whose new wife, conveniently enough, provided his alibi.

Nevertheless, Kathleen Savio’s death was officially ruled an accident.

…Drew Peterson didn’t waste time mourning his ex-wife’s sudden death. The Savio family said that immediately after Kathleen’s funeral, while the rest of the family was attending a reception, Drew backed a truck into the driveway of the home he had once shared with Kathleen, loaded many of her possessions into the truck and drove away.

Shortly after Kathleen’s death, Peterson produced a handwritten will, supposedly signed by Kathleen, that left all of her assets to him. James Carroll, Drew’s uncle, was named executor of Kathleen’s estate, which was valued at nearly $300,000.

Finally, since Mr. Tomczak is available to offer his insight and expertise concerning this case, maybe someone can question him and do a story about how he let such a slimeball ex-cop slip through his hands. Why anyone would consider what he and his office ignored was justice served.

This Judge reminds me of a guy my mother used to work for. She was a legal secretary. He used to yell and scream at her, and once threw a pencil at her and shouted “I’m effing sick of your cancer” when she told him she needed to go through another round of radiation treatment. He was such a pig. He is now a federal judge! Scary.

Hi Aussie. I used to work for a lunatic lawyer like that, whose veins would pop out of her neck for all the screaming and yelling she’d do. I used to imagine her head blowing right off her neck sometimes. She’d throw files and spew venom like a snake.